"Government bureaucrats" are democratically elected, so everyone actually gets a say in their decisions; whereas "the market" is just "people with money". So when you say "let the market decide" you're actually saying "let people with money decide". That might not be the optimal approach in all things.

No. A democracy says that 51% of the people get to decide for everyone. One size fits all.

A free market says that anyone can buy any product/service any way that they (as an individual) like, as long as that product/service is available at a price they can afford.

To me[fn], #1 sounds like "mob rule" and #2 sounds like "freedom to choose".

[fn] I am certain that many will disagree with this formulation.

Yes freedom to choose what the sellers choose to sell which is determined by what is most profitable. Those things can include many things that are not in any way optimal from the perspective of the consumer. For instance fatty addictive foods. Sure you get to decide, but go to a grocery store. Most of the things there are garbage. Why? Well they are profitable to sell. They are addictive. They are cheap to produce so you can get a high margin. They are loaded with salt, sugar, carbs. They are made of corn. That's a parable for the whole economy.

People only produce profitable things, and that profit has to be significant, i.e. 3x for many food items. So you get a few corporation with billion dollar budgets that dominate the market with variations of the same thing, 100s of kinds of potato chips or whatever. And shut out variety, health and so on. You have choice to buy, but the seller has the choice to sell you whatever and destroy smaller competitors through competition and limit variety. Those shelves cost a lot of money and only the most profitable things stay on them, that's by design.

You can not compete with these guys because they have an economy of scale and you will no matter how hard you try achieve the same level of efficiencies to have any significant impact on the market. And even if you do, they will copy you or buy you out and then slowly turn whatever you were trying to do in the profit objective, corrupting it.

Well, sure. I wouldn't expect people to produce products for my benefit at a loss. It wouldn't be possible for them to do so if I wanted them to anyway.

Going back to the original topic, IF I am doing a project in an area without too many fresh food choices because my neighbors like crappy food (and for right now, I am), isn't having a big corporation like Amazon being able to ship me fresh food that isn't available to me locally, a good thing? More choices?

Now, maybe your point is really that Amazon's ability to ship me fresh fruits and vegetables is unreasonably harsh on the local green grocer. Which it might be. But I don't understand how Amazon (a retailer, not a food manufacturer) will corrupt the food at some point in the future?

Customer want low price > Big retailers (like Amazon) apply pressure on manufacturer to get low prices > Manufacturers make cheap food

Sure. Who would pay $1000 for an iPhone when it could be had for $100? But nobody is forcing people to eat Big Macs instead of fresh salad. And if people want to buy Big Macs, who are we to democratically decide that this option should be off the table for them?

"But nobody is forcing people to eat Big Macs "

Not forcing but strongly encouraging via price + marketing + lack of education + lobbying

"who are we to democratically decide that this option should be off the table for them?"

We are the national community. People eating too much BigMac cost too much to the community. That's why we (should) tax junk food.

If people are willing to pay more for products from local shops rather than Amazon (or high quality food rather than fast food), then it will be profitable to sell those products. If Parisians in general prefer local shops over Amazon, then the local shops will stay.

You should be lobbying Parisians to vote with their wallets instead of lobbying government to use violence to satisfy your preference. Of course, Parisians are already voting with their wallets, and if Amazon really is a threat to local shops, then Parisians obviously prefer Amazon's offering.

Why should they pay more? People like value. Given two products they will always pay less. I think there is a small minority that pays premium for local, difference, culture, the masses want as much value as possible. Price is a significant motivator of purchasing decision. And most people barely earn enough money to justify premium purchasing decisions.

People are dumb idiot sheep well under the thumb of corporations. They are irrational and yet act in predictable ways when serviced by large corporations which are looking to create a monoculture.

If you want any sense of culture, of variety, of difference, then you should never ever buy this argument of letting people vote with their wallets, because we know what that leads to, it leads to the cheapest lowest cost goods and economies of scales dominate the market and create a monoculture.

Big fish at the expense of the little guys always win this game of letting people vote with wallets. And those big fish are usually not local and they sell everyone the same thing, all over the globe.

Yes, everyone is an idiot but you. Everyone should cater to snobs at the expense of the working class.

I was speaking from experience.

No, a majority gets a say in democracy. That is usually almost 50% less.

Oh and then there are those governments who don't care about votets after election. That's why I prefer the market, YMMV

The "people with money" you are talking about are Parisians. The market isn't some faceless corporate entity, it's you and me and our neighbors. If the market (that's us!) prefer local shops over Amazon, then they will continue to exist.

I totally agree it is fine to prefer either solution. However I disagree with your proposition about "market" vs "bureaucrats". I think (imho) business logic and free market are not efficient enough to guarantee quality of life.

So, even though you "agree it is fine to prefer either solution," you are willing to use literal, blunt force against your own neighbors to prevent them from using the solution that they prefer? That's neither self-consistent nor very neighborly.

It is absolutely fine to let Amazon come in Paris, I would strongly be against a ban.

The issue is their economic power might erase a bit of the charm of Paris and lower my quality of life.

That's why the political power counterbalances this.

If enough Parisians prefer to buy from local shops rather than Amazon, the local shops will stay. Amazon can only outcompete local shops if Parisians prefer Amazon's offering.

I guess it is not that simple. The immediate price signal is a stronger incentive than the longterm diversity of the neighborhood.

Humans are not very good for long term thinking. Often, people needs immediate consequences of their action to judge them.

Or the existance of the super efficient mechanism will kill the inefficient one, and hence, those who prefered the local butcher/grocer will not get their preference served.

If they want an inefficient system, they should pay for it.

They already are with higher prices. How about Amazon paying for traffic caused running bits and bobs back and forth?

They are already doing that by paying taxes.

If Parisians will accept higher prices at local shops, then those shops will continue to exist. Amazon cannot "kill" them unless Parisians prefer Amazon.

Being from Paris too, there is a huge boom in delivery services. While I'm fine with this, the negative impact on traffic safety, fluidity, the pollution etc. are currently not priced in, and it's a huge problem.

So while I'm not really agreeing with the reasons quoted by the mayor, I could definitely see a severe tax on this kind of business, because I'm sick of getting almost flattened by scooters driving on sidewalks.

> While I'm fine with this, the negative impact on traffic safety, fluidity, the pollution etc. are currently not priced in

Should brick and mortar businesses also be taxed extra for the increased traffic safety and pollution caused by citizens traveling to their stores to buy products? If anything I would expect delivery services to reduce both these problems.

People dont use cars in Paris to do groceries.

This is pretty strange. Do they eat less? Do they not have kids? That may be it; the rate is low in Europe.

The thought of walking to multiple shops just to buy food is a nightmare scenario to me. Considering just milk, I probably go through roughly 2 gallons (eh, 9 L) per day. I probably go through twice that much in juice. There will be a couple loaves of bread, 2 or 3 kg of meat, a hand of bananas (don't bruise them!), several large tomatos, half a kg of chocolate...

That's one day. Judging by filled grocery carts, it's about 0.2 cubic meters of stuff, a.k.a. 200 L of stuff. I think that comes to about 200 kg, given that the density of metal and glass (containers) kind of compensates for air pockets.

I could make 10 trips. Ugh. I could enlist all the little children, marching them through whatever bad weather there may be and trying not to lose any along the way. While we walk, the ice cream melts and the glass bottles get dropped. Think how many little kids would be needed to transport 200 L weighing about 200 kg.

I don't see how this is viable. Are you living on dried food? Milk powder is just not the same, and I've never even seen real juice powder. Assuming juice powder even exists, I'm sure it won't be like not-from-concentrate orange juice with extra pulp.

I'm imagining a family trudging through the winter snow in Paris. Everybody has a huge aluminum-frame hiking pack, including kids who are barely old enough to walk. To avoid losing any kids along the way, they are roped together kind of like a chain gang. It still takes multiple trips.

The difference is that Paris, just like many EU cities, has a very different layout from most US cities. The city of Paris actually compares to inner cities, with suburbs being other cities around. The difference is that most integration between Paris (Paris and its immediate surroundings concentrates most of the workplaces) and the suburbs is done by public transportation, and that the inner city infrastructure can't support the affluence of cars cars.

The kind of large families like you have are very rare in paris, for multiple reasons : -it's easier to afford more space/a house outside of Paris. The people that can afford large housing in Paris definitely can afford alternative solutions. -Having a large family and having to care for it by yourself means you rather have a car (e.g. to drive children to school, activities, vacations, etc). Having a car in Paris is not a good idea. -Cities outside paris are usually more friendly to families : it's easier for schools to take the kids in woods for sports activities or hikes, sports facilities are more accessible, etc. -Also, more families outside of Paris means that your children will grow in a neighbourhood with families. There's little for children to do outside of home/school in Paris.

Btw, your grocery list feels like your family is around 15-20 people. Families are considered large from 2 adults/4 children here. While it was common before the boomers' generation, families with more than 6 children are almost non-existent now. Also housing 15-20 people decently in Paris probably means you could hire people to take care of groceries...

(also lasting snow is maybe once-a-year in Paris these days, and it's usually chaos these days)

I suppose it could work for people who are athletic and single, such as typical college students and recent graduates. I did once live in Boston without a car.

Outside of Paris is supposedly not very French anymore, and not very safe. It doesn't seem like a place you'd willingly live with kids. Maybe you mean really far away, far beyond the suburbs.

Your culture goes extinct if you don't make more.

I have 12 people, including one who is 198 cm tall and still growing. Standards for "decently" vary; large families normally cram people into a normal-sized house (140 to 280 m²) almost like the pre-boomer generations did.

"Outside of Paris is supposedly not very French anymore, and not very safe."

I do not know where you get your information but you may have to change your sources. It seems very "FoxNewsy"

We lost what was closest to non-partisan news a couple years back when CNN decided to go liberal. Since then our news choices have been 100% junk. I might as well go with Fox, since at least it isn't trying to push Democrat framing of everything.

I wouldn't do any better by following news that refuses to cover anything that doesn't mesh well with the liberal agenda.

Those riots in the Paris suburbs... did you not hear about them, or do you think they were faked, maybe like the Moon landings? What about the sunbathing lady in the park? What about the people who claim to have been harassed and worse by neighborhood sharia patrols while doing things like carrying alcoholic drinks? None of this is safe, and it sure doesn't sound very French to me.

I don't know for the families we are just two. For sure we don't consume 9L of milk and 18L of juice per day (not even per month). I drink tap water. I do groceries three time a week, usually takes 20/25 minutes.

Then quantities you are taking about seems really huge to me, even for a family of five. May I ask where you are from ?

I'm in the USA, with a family of twelve. My wife is very Catholic, which used to be the norm for France.

We easily finish two whole chickens in one meal. We can almost manage to finish a 10 kg turkey.

Even for a little family of five, shopping without a car seems like it would be terribly difficult.

How big is your family?

I don't think i can fill a shopping cart with the groceries for one week for two people.

It's a dozen people. I've known bigger families.

Thats why we have different countries, with different cultures. You can stay in America with your market, he can stay in France with his local community.